Oh dear, the benefit scroungers are scared!

86JR

86JR

86JR

Permabanned
Joined
19 Oct 2007
Posts
6,322
Location
.
They say the truth hurts the most, right?

scroungersscared.png
 
I got this earlier. Stopped reading after the 'baseball bat' part.

I don't watch **** like that on TV, but from what I hear, those on it are the stereotypical bunch of scroungers. Not all on benefits fit that description, but for those who do...

Kill them with fire?
 
I love how he is petitioning us to donate to relevant charities too.

I mean, what is a relevant charity in this case? Does he want the taxpayer to donate even more money than they pay in tax already? Hmmm.
 
If there's a charity that investigates benifit thieves then I assume its relevant :)

I do agree with channel 4 stopping broadcasting of utter (end sentance as you wish).
 
Flame-bait TV made for the idiotic general public (OP as an example) who are all too eager to lap it up.
 
Personally I'm happy that the media concentrates on the 0.01% that forms the "scroungers" in the benefit system and misrepresent them as the majority.

I mean, there surely can't be another good story to be found with the remaining 99.99% right?
 
elmarko said:
Flame-bait TV made for the idiotic general public
Click to expand...

There's no way a show entitled "benefits street" was flame-bait television. Investigative journalism at its finest. How they managed to capture the mentality of millions of people in such a short space of time was brilliant.
 
Why is the Op's screenshot so wide? This bothers me more than anything else.
 
Not watched the program but came across these figures in the Daily Telegraph today and thought them interesting (depending how accurate they are)...

The biggest scandal of Benefits Street, which Channel 4 is unlikely to reveal, is that White Dee is behaving rationally in deciding not to work. This is not something ministers like to divulge, but Policy in Practice, a welfare and employment consultancy, has run the figures for The Spectator. Dee is a single mother with two young children.

Were she to earn, say, £90 a week as a cleaner, then the system would reduce her benefits by £70 — an effective tax rate of 78 per cent on that £90 she’s earned. She’d thus be slaving away all week for £20 — far less than the minimum wage.

It doesn’t get too much better higher up the scale — a £350-a-week job leaves her a pathetic £35 a week better off. If she landed a £23,000-a-year job, she’d be just £2,100 a year better off than if she’d spent the year sitting on the sofa watching daytime TV and chatting to her pals on the street. This is nothing to do with indolence. Which of us would work at a 91 per cent tax rate?
Click to expand...
 
mrk said:
Why is the Op's screenshot so wide? This bothers me more than anything else.
Click to expand...

It's a good point. Full-screen browsing and using roundcube - lots of wrong decisions illustrated in one picture.

#Chri5# said:
Not watched the program but came across these figures in the Daily Telegraph today and thought them interesting (depending how accurate they are)...
Click to expand...

Assuming the figures are accurate it does highlight the need for welfare reform as the article calls for. However, undoing wage repression caused by employers knowing that they can pay people terribly because the state will pick up the bill for the extra income required to live is a much more delicate process than people seem to think.
 
Last edited:
The article above is nonsense, the person in question doesn't have have an effective tax rate of 91%.
That implies that she has the money taken away, when in fact, she isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom